Association between body mass index and localized prostate cancer management and disease-specific quality of life.

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to describe the association between body mass index (BMI) and (1) management option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) and (2) disease-specific quality of life (ds-QoL) after treatment or active surveillance. Subjects/patients and methods: We analysed data from men with localized PCa managed with radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), or active surveillance (AS) in a prospective, population-based cohort study. We evaluated the association between BMI and management option with multivariable multinomial logistic regression analysis. The association between BMI and ds-QoL was assessed using multivariable longitudinal linear regression. Regression models were adjusted for baseline domain scores, demographics, and clinicopathologic characteristics. Results: A total of 2378 men were included (medians [quartiles]: age 64 [59-69] years; BMI 27 kg/m2; 77% were non-Hispanic white); 29% were obese (BMI ≥ 30). Accounting for demographic and clinicopathologic features, BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2 was inversely associated with the likelihood of receiving RP (compared with RT) and became statistically significant at BMI ≥ 33 kg/m2 (maximum adjusted relative risk ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, p = 0.013 for BMI ≥ 33 vs. 25). Conversely, BMI was not significantly associated with the likelihood of receiving AS compared with RT. After stratification by management option, obese men who underwent definitive treatment were not found to have clinically worse ds-QoL. Obese men initially on AS appeared to have worse urinary incontinence than nonobese men, but this was not significant on an as-treated sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Among men with localized PCa, those with BMI ≥ 33 kg/m2 were less likely to receive surgery than radiation. Obesity was not associated with ds-QoL in men undergoing definitive treatment, nor in men who remained on AS.

Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS: CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.

Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate cancer often co-occur. Their effect on urinary function is an important consideration regarding prostate cancer treatment choices. While prostate volume (PV) and urinary symptoms are commonly used in treatment choice decision making, their association with post-treatment urinary function is unknown. We evaluated the associations between PV and baseline urinary function with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We identified 1647 patients from CEASAR, a multicenter population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer, for analysis. Primary outcomes were treatment choice and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years. Multivariable analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Median baseline PV was 36 mL (IQR 27-48), and baseline urinary irritative/obstructive domain score was 87 (IQR 75-100). There was no observed clinically meaningful association between PV and treatment choice or post-treatment urinary function. Among patients with poor baseline urinary function, treatment with radiation or surgery was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in urinary function at 6 months which was durable through 5 years (improvement from baseline at 5 years: radiation 20.4 points, surgery 24.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: PV was not found to be associated with treatment modality or post-treatment urinary irritative/obstructive function among men treated for localized prostate cancer. Men with poor baseline urinary irritative/obstructive function improve after treatment with surgery or radiation therapy.

Postdischarge Noninvasive Telemonitoring and Nurse Telephone Coaching Improve Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients With High Burden of Comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive telemonitoring and nurse telephone coaching (NTM-NTC) is a promising postdischarge strategy in heart failure (HF). Comorbid conditions and disease burden influence health outcomes in HF, but how comorbidity burden modulates the effectiveness of NTM-NTC is unknown. This study aims to identify patients with HF who may benefit from postdischarge NTM-NTC based on their burden of comorbidity. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Better Effectiveness After Transition - Heart Failure trial, patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF were randomized to postdischarge NTM-NTC or usual care. In this secondary analysis of 1313 patients with complete data, comorbidity burden was assessed by scoring complication and coexisting diagnoses from index admissions. Clinical outcomes included 30-day and 180-day readmissions, mortality, days alive, and combined days alive and out of the hospital. Patients had a mean of 5.7 comorbidities and were stratified into low (0-2), moderate (3-8), and high comorbidity (≥9) subgroups. Increased comorbidity burden was associated with worse outcomes. NTM-NTC was not associated with readmission rates in any comorbidity subgroup. Among high comorbidity patients, NTM-NTC was associated with significantly lower mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.90) and 180 days (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.98), as well as more days alive (160.1 vs 140.3, P = .029) and days alive out of the hospital (152.0 vs 133.2, P = .044) compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge NTM-NTC improved survival among patients with HF with a high comorbidity burden. Comorbidity burden may be useful for identifying patients likely to benefit from this management strategy.

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. METHODS: Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. RESULTS: Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiotherapy With Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results From a Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Data comparing radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost are lacking. To better guide shared decision making regarding treatment, we compared patient reported outcomes through 5 years following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2011-2012, men aged <80 years with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and followed longitudinally. Patient reported outcomes included the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Regression models adjusted for baseline scores and covariates were constructed. RESULTS: The study population included 112 men treated with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost and 1,553 treated with radical prostatectomy. Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive (adjusted mean score difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.0 [-8.7, -1.3]; P = .008 at 5 years) and better urinary incontinence function (13.3 [7.7, 18.9]; P < .001 at 5 years) through 5 years. Urinary function bother was similar between groups (P > .4 at all timepoints). Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with worse bowel function (-4.0 [-6.9, -1.1]; P = .006 at 5 years) through 5 years compared to radical prostatectomy. Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with better sexual function at 1 year (12.0 [6.5, 17.5]; P < .001 at 1 year) compared to radical prostatectomy, but there was insufficient evidence to reject the supposition that no difference was seen at 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel functions but better urinary incontinence function through 5 years after treatment. These patient-reported functional outcomes may clarify treatment expectations and help inform treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.

Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Sexual function outcomes of radiation and androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer in men with good baseline function.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction, including erectile dysfunction and loss of libido, are common among men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer. Both local treatments and systemic androgen deprivation therapy may contribute to these outcomes and are differentially indicated based on disease characteristics. We sought to compare sexual function through 5 years after radiation treatment with and without androgen deprivation therapy in men with good baseline sexual function to better understand long-term effects in this understudied subset of patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively assembled population-based cohort of men who underwent radiation with and without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate or high-risk localized prostate cancer. Sexual function was assessed longitudinally over 5 years. Men with erections sufficient for intercourse at baseline were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of 167 patients included, 73 underwent radiation alone and 94 received androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation (51 with intermediate and 43 with high-risk disease). Androgen deprivation therapy use was associated with worse sexual function through 1 year regardless of disease risk. This difference was no longer statistically significant at 3 years in the intermediate-risk group. Compared to radiation alone, androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk disease was associated with worse sexual function at 3 years (effect: -20.3 points, CI [-31.8, -8.8], p < 0.001) but not at 5 years (effect: -3.4, CI [-17.2, 10.5], p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation is associated with worse sexual function through 3-years follow-up in men with high-risk prostate cancer compared to radiation alone. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy in the treatment of intermediate-risk disease does not appear to result in worse sexual function at 3 or 5-year follow-up compared to radiation alone.

Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort.

BACKGROUND: The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). RESULTS: 587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Association of Treatment Modality, Functional Outcomes, and Baseline Characteristics With Treatment-Related Regret Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Treatment-related regret is an integrative, patient-centered measure that accounts for morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and anxiety associated with prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between treatment approach, functional outcomes, and patient expectations and treatment-related regret among patients with localized prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based, prospective cohort study used 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-based registries in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation cohort. Participants included men with clinically localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. Data were analyzed from August 2, 2020, to March 1, 2021. EXPOSURES: Prostate cancer treatments included surgery, radiotherapy, and active surveillance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-reported treatment-related regret using validated metrics. Regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment approach, and patient-reported functional outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 2072 men included in the analysis (median age, 64 [IQR, 59-69] years), treatment-related regret at 5 years after diagnosis was reported in 183 patients (16%) undergoing surgery, 76 (11%) undergoing radiotherapy, and 20 (7%) undergoing active surveillance. Compared with active surveillance and adjusting for baseline differences, active treatment was associated with an increased likelihood of regret for those undergoing surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.40 [95% CI, 1.44-4.01]) but not radiotherapy (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.88-2.66]). When mediation by patient-reported functional outcomes was considered, treatment modality was not independently associated with regret. Sexual dysfunction, but not other patient-reported functional outcomes, was significantly associated with regret (aOR for change in sexual function from baseline, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). Subjective patient-perceived treatment efficacy (aOR, 5.40 [95% CI, 2.15-13.56]) and adverse effects (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 3.97-8.58]), compared with patient expectations before treatment, were associated with treatment-related regret. Other patient characteristics at the time of treatment decision-making, including participatory decision-making tool scores (aOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.92]), social support (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), and age (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.97]), were significantly associated with regret. Results were comparable when assessing regret at 3 years rather than 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cohort study suggest that more than 1 in 10 patients with localized prostate cancer experience treatment-related regret. The rates of regret appear to differ between treatment approaches in a manner that is mediated by functional outcomes and patient expectations. Treatment preparedness that focuses on expectations and treatment toxicity and is delivered in the context of shared decision-making should be the subject of future research to examine whether it can reduce regret.

Online seminars as an information source for direct-to-consumer stem cell therapy.

Aim: To attend stem cell (SC) seminars hosted by US-based direct-to-consumer SC businesses either in person or via online 'webinars' to determine accuracy and regulatory oversight of the advertised SC therapies. Methods: The therapeutic claims, costs, risks, scientific evidence in support of a therapy and any regulatory oversight were collated using pre-established checklists. Participation consisted of one live attendance of a seminar, and following COVID-19 restrictions, review of seven recorded presentations available on the internet from SC businesses. Results & conclusion: None of the SC therapies advertised by direct-to-consumer clinics reviewed were supported by proper clinical evidence nor substantiated by peer reviewed literature.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR). METHODS: For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years. LAY SUMMARY: In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.

Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Contemporary treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer provide comparable overall and cancer-specific survival. However, the degree of financial burden imposed by treatment, the factors contributing to that burden, and how different treatments compare with regard to financial toxicity remain poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer from 2011 to 2012. Questionnaires were collected at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Differences in patient-reported financial burden were compared between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2,121 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15% reported large or very large burden of treatment costs within 6 months, declining to 3% by year 5. When controlling for age, education, income and other covariates, external beam radiotherapy was associated with greater financial burden than active surveillance and radical prostatectomy at 1 year (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, respectively) and 3 years (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.1-8.8 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, respectively). Radical prostatectomy and active surveillance had similar rates of financial burden at all time points. Age, race, education, and D'Amico risk group were associated with financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiotherapy was associated with the highest financial burden, even when controlling for age, education and income. Prospective studies that directly measure out-of-pocket and indirect costs and account more thoroughly for baseline socioeconomic differences are warranted in order to identify those most at risk.

Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Effect of timing of postprostatectomy radiation on functional outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The timing of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy is controversial, and its effect on sexual, urinary, and bowel function is unknown. This study seeks to compare patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and postprostatectomy radiation as well as elucidate the timing of radiation to allow optimal recovery of function. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study of men with localized prostate cancer. Patient-reported sexual, urinary, and bowel functional outcomes were measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at baseline and at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Functional outcomes were compared among men undergoing RP alone, post-RP adjuvant radiation (RP + aRT), and post-RP salvage radiation (RP + sRT) using multivariable models controlling for baseline clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1,482 CEASAR participants initially treated with RP for clinically localized prostate cancer, 11.5% (N = 170) received adjuvant (aRT, N = 57) or salvage (sRT, N = 113) radiation. Men who received post-RP RT had worse scores in all domains (sexual function [-9.0, 95% confidence interval {-14.5, -3.6}, P < 0.001], incontinence [-8.8, {-14.0, -3.6}, P < 0.001], irritative voiding [-5.9, {-9.0, -2.8}, P < 0.001], bowel irritative [-3.5, {-5.8, -1.2}, P = 0.002], and hormonal function [-4.5, {-7.2, -1.7}, P = 0.001]) compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. Compared to men treated with RP alone in an adjusted linear model, sRT was associated with significantly worse scores in all functional domains. aRT was associated with significantly worse incontinence, urinary irritation, and hormonal function domain scores compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. On multivariable modeling, RT administered approximately 24 months after RP was associated with the smallest decline in sexual domain score, with an adjusted mean decrease of 8.85 points (95% confidence interval [-19.8, 2.1]) from post-RP, pre-RT baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In men with localized prostate cancer, post-RP RT was associated with significantly worse sexual, urinary, and bowel function domain scores at 5 years compared to RP alone. Radiation delayed for approximately 24 months after RP may be optimal for preserving erectile function compared to radiation administered closer to the time of RP.

Assessing the Quality of Surgical Care for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from the CEASAR Study.

PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest that nationally endorsed quality measures for prostate cancer care are not linked closely with outcomes. Using a prospective, population based cohort we measured clinically relevant variation in structure, process and outcome measures in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) Study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2011 to 2012 with 1,069 meeting the final inclusion criteria. Quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) and clinical data by chart review. Six quality measures were assessed, including pelvic lymphadenectomy with risk of lymph node involvement 2% or greater, appropriate nerve sparing, negative surgical margins, urinary and sexual function, treatment by high volume surgeon, and 30-day and 1-year complications. Receipt of high quality care was compared across categories of race, age, surgeon volume and surgical approach via multivariable analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in quality across race, age or surgeon volume strata, except for worse urinary incontinence in Black men. However, robotic surgery patients experienced fewer complications (3% vs 9.3% short-term and 11% vs 16% long-term), were more likely to be treated by a high volume surgeon (47% vs 25%) and demonstrated better sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort we did not identify meaningful variation in quality of care across racial groups, age groups and surgeon volume strata, suggesting that men are receiving comparable quality of care across these strata. However, we did find variation between open and robotic surgery with fewer complications, improved sexual function and increased use of high volume surgeons in the robotic group, possibly reflecting differences in quality between approaches, differences in practice patterns and/or biases in patient selection.

Development and Internal Validation of a Web-based Tool to Predict Sexual, Urinary, and Bowel Function Longitudinally After Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making to guide treatment of localized prostate cancer requires delivery of the anticipated quality of life (QOL) outcomes of contemporary treatment options (including radical prostatectomy [RP], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [RT], and active surveillance [AS]). Predicting these QOL outcomes based on personalized features is necessary. OBJECTIVE: To create an easy-to-use tool to predict personalized sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormonal function outcomes after RP, RT, and AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, population-based cohort study was conducted utilizing US cancer registries of 2563 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012. INTERVENTION: Patient-reported urinary, sexual, and bowel function up to 5 yr after treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal function through 5 yr after treatment were collected using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire. Comprehensive models to predict domain scores were fit, which included age, race, D'Amico classification, body mass index, EPIC-26 baseline function, treatment, and standardized scores measuring comorbidity, general QOL, and psychosocial health. We reduced these models by removing the instrument scores and replacing D'Amico classification with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason score. For the final model, we performed bootstrap internal validation to assess model calibration from which an easy-to-use web-based tool was developed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The prediction models achieved bias-corrected R-squared values of 0.386, 0.232, 0.183, 0.214, and 0.309 for sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritative, bowel, and hormonal domains, respectively. Differences in R-squared values between the comprehensive and parsimonious models were small in magnitude. Calibration was excellent. The web-based tool is available at https://statez.shinyapps.io/PCDSPred/. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer can be predicted at the time of diagnosis based on age, race, PSA, biopsy grade, baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. Providers and patients can use this prediction tool to inform shared decision making. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we studied patient-reported sexual, urinary, hormonal, and bowel function through 5 yr after treatment with radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. We developed a web-based predictive tool that can be used to predict one's outcomes after treatment based on age, race, prostate-specific antigen, biopsy grade, pretreatment baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. We hope both patients and providers can use this tool to better understand expected outcomes after treatment, further enhancing shared decision making between providers and patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Through 5 Years for Active Surveillance, Surgery, Brachytherapy, or External Beam Radiation With or Without Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Understanding adverse effects of contemporary treatment approaches for men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selection. Objective: To compare functional outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatments over 5 years after treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, population-based cohort study of 1386 men with favorable-risk (clinical stage cT1 to cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤20 ng/mL, and Grade Group 1-2) prostate cancer and 619 men with unfavorable-risk (clinical stage cT2cN0M0, PSA of 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5) prostate cancer diagnosed in 2011 through 2012, accrued from 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program sites and a US prostate cancer registry, with surveys through September 2017. Exposures: Treatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 261), or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (n = 87) for men with favorable-risk disease and treatment with prostatectomy (n = 402) or EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 217) for men with unfavorable-risk disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported function, based on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (range, 0-100), 5 years after treatment. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important difference was 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritative symptoms, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormonal function. Results: A total of 2005 men met inclusion criteria and completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline survey (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [59-70] years; 1529 of 1993 participants [77%] were non-Hispanic white). For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, -10.9 [95% CI, -14.2 to -7.6]) and sexual function at 3 years (adjusted mean difference, -15.2 [95% CI, -18.8 to -11.5]) compared with active surveillance. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with worse urinary irritative (adjusted mean difference, -7.0 [95% CI, -10.1 to -3.9]), sexual (adjusted mean difference, -10.1 [95% CI, -14.6 to -5.7]), and bowel (adjusted mean difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -7.6 to -2.4]) function at 1 year compared with active surveillance. EBRT was associated with urinary, sexual, and bowel function changes not clinically different from active surveillance at any time point through 5 years. For men with unfavorable-risk disease, EBRT with ADT was associated with lower hormonal function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference, -5.3 [95% CI, -8.2 to -2.4]) and bowel function at 1 year (adjusted mean difference, -4.1 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.9]), but better sexual function at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.2-18.7]) and incontinence at each time point through 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 23.2 [95% CI, 17.7-28.7]), than prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, most functional differences associated with contemporary management options attenuated by 5 years. However, men undergoing prostatectomy reported clinically meaningful worse incontinence through 5 years compared with all other options, and men undergoing prostatectomy for unfavorable-risk disease reported worse sexual function at 5 years compared with men who underwent EBRT with ADT.